Abstract We evaluated gender-differences in quality of type 1 diabetes (T1DM) care. Starting from electronic medical records of 300 centers, 5 process indicators, 3 favorable and 6 unfavorable intermediate outcomes, 6 treatment intensity/appropriateness measures and an overall quality score were measured. The likelihood of women vs. men (reference class) to be monitored, to reach outcomes, or to be treated has been investigated through multilevel logistic regression analyses; results are expressed as Odd Ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). The inter-center variability in the achievement of the unfavorable outcomes was also investigated. Overall, 28,802 subjects were analyzed (45.5% women). Women and men had similar age (44.5±16.0 vs. 45.0±17.0 years) and diabetes duration (18.3±13.0 vs. 18.8±13.0 years). No between-gender differences were found in process indicators. As for intermediate outcomes, women showed 33% higher likelihood of having HbA1c 8.0% (OR = 1.33; 95%CI: 1.25±1.43), 29% lower risk of blood pressure 140/90 mmHg (OR = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.65±0.77) and 27% lower risk of micro/macroalbuminuria (OR = 0.73; 95%CI: 0.65±0.81) than men, while BMI, LDL-c and GFR did not significantly differ; treatment intensity/appropriateness was not systematically different between genders; overall quality score was similar in men and women. Consistently across centers a larger proportion of women than men had HbA1c 8.0%, while a smaller proportion had BP 140/90 mmHg. No gender-disparities were found in process measures and improvements are required in both genders. The systematic worse metabolic control in women andworse blood pressure in men suggest that pathophysiologic differences rather than the care provided might explain these differences.

Gender-disparitiesin adults with type 1 diabetes: More than a quality of care issue. A cross-sectional observational study from the AMD annals initiative

RUSSO, GIUSEPPINA;
2016-01-01

Abstract

Abstract We evaluated gender-differences in quality of type 1 diabetes (T1DM) care. Starting from electronic medical records of 300 centers, 5 process indicators, 3 favorable and 6 unfavorable intermediate outcomes, 6 treatment intensity/appropriateness measures and an overall quality score were measured. The likelihood of women vs. men (reference class) to be monitored, to reach outcomes, or to be treated has been investigated through multilevel logistic regression analyses; results are expressed as Odd Ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). The inter-center variability in the achievement of the unfavorable outcomes was also investigated. Overall, 28,802 subjects were analyzed (45.5% women). Women and men had similar age (44.5±16.0 vs. 45.0±17.0 years) and diabetes duration (18.3±13.0 vs. 18.8±13.0 years). No between-gender differences were found in process indicators. As for intermediate outcomes, women showed 33% higher likelihood of having HbA1c 8.0% (OR = 1.33; 95%CI: 1.25±1.43), 29% lower risk of blood pressure 140/90 mmHg (OR = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.65±0.77) and 27% lower risk of micro/macroalbuminuria (OR = 0.73; 95%CI: 0.65±0.81) than men, while BMI, LDL-c and GFR did not significantly differ; treatment intensity/appropriateness was not systematically different between genders; overall quality score was similar in men and women. Consistently across centers a larger proportion of women than men had HbA1c 8.0%, while a smaller proportion had BP 140/90 mmHg. No gender-disparities were found in process measures and improvements are required in both genders. The systematic worse metabolic control in women andworse blood pressure in men suggest that pathophysiologic differences rather than the care provided might explain these differences.
2016
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/3107183
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 17
  • Scopus 29
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 30
social impact